dhabums wrote:I have no idea what counts as kicking the puck in anymore.

That's OK - nobody in Toronto does, either.

Southern_Canuck wrote:Seriously - go back to the Sergei Kostitsyn goal on Feb 7 --- he clearly and purposefully angles his skate to direct the puck in, and they allow it after a review... what the hell is the difference?

2) Consiracy against Vancouver.

Which is it?

S_C

They're just pissed in TO because the Laffs havn't beaten the Canucks since Cretien was Prime Minister.

dhabums wrote:I have no idea what counts as kicking the puck in anymore.

That's OK - nobody in Toronto does, either.

Southern_Canuck wrote:Seriously - go back to the Sergei Kostitsyn goal on Feb 7 --- he clearly and purposefully angles his skate to direct the puck in, and they allow it after a review... what the hell is the difference?

2) Consiracy against Vancouver.

Which is it?

S_C

They're just pissed in TO because the Laffs havn't beaten the Canucks since Cretien was Prime Minister.

Meds wrote:Rome actually made some defensive plays tonight that were good. I still think he's useless and that the team is better off with Alberts in the lineup over Rome. Even with his handful of good reads, Rome still managed to play on the only defensive pairing that finished a minus. His penalty in the first when he went after Hall was stupid. The puck at the other end of the ice and the ref right beside him.....yeah.....why not throw Taylor Hall on his ass for no apparent reason? Here's a hint: "whistle".

In Rome's defence, Canucks Army has Rome's scoring chances differential at +3 (8 for/5 against). That was 2nd best behind Tanev +4 (7-3). Hamhuis was -1 (3-4), Bieksa even (4-4) and Salo/Edler were -1 each (2-3)

Meds wrote:Rome actually made some defensive plays tonight that were good. I still think he's useless and that the team is better off with Alberts in the lineup over Rome. Even with his handful of good reads, Rome still managed to play on the only defensive pairing that finished a minus. His penalty in the first when he went after Hall was stupid. The puck at the other end of the ice and the ref right beside him.....yeah.....why not throw Taylor Hall on his ass for no apparent reason? Here's a hint: "whistle".

In Rome's defence, Canucks Army has Rome's scoring chances differential at +3 (8 for/5 against). That was 2nd best behind Tanev +4 (7-3). Hamhuis was -1 (3-4), Bieksa even (4-4) and Salo/Edler were -1 each (2-3)

Scoring chance differentials mean nothing. Every shot on net can be considered a scoring chance because the possibility exists that the goalie will whiff on it and the puck ends up in the back of the net. However, every scoring chance is not necessarily a shot on net. So Hamhuis, Bieksa, Salo, and Edler, could be a -1 on the differential while keeping the Oiler's to the outside and surrendering shots that Schneider could see coming a mile away. Technically scoring chances, but not really threats to score unless Schneider screwed it up.

Rome was on for one of the Oiler's goals against and on the bench for all of the Canucks goals.

I think you are being overcritical of a bottom pairing defenceman that makes $750k... The play of Aaron Rome is not what makes or breaks the Vancouver Canucks, and his cap hit does not prevent the Canucks from improving themselves.

I like Rome as a 5-6 defenceman that brings solid, if unspectacular, defence, some hits, some crease clearing, and is able to chip in on offence with some good breakout passes, and offensive zone keep ins. And he reliably chips it out when he doesn't think he has a play.

Compare depth defencemen around the league that cost $750k, and I think you'll find that Rome is one of the better ones.

Southern_Canuck wrote:I think you are being overcritical of a bottom pairing defenceman that makes $750k... The play of Aaron Rome is not what makes or breaks the Vancouver Canucks, and his cap hit does not prevent the Canucks from improving themselves.

I like Rome as a 5-6 defenceman that brings solid, if unspectacular, defence, some hits, some crease clearing, and is able to chip in on offence with some good breakout passes, and offensive zone keep ins. And he reliably chips it out when he doesn't think he has a play.

Compare depth defencemen around the league that cost $750k, and I think you'll find that Rome is one of the better ones.

S_C

I will concede that point without argument, but will qualify my criticism by saying that it is founded as much on Rome's play as it is on the facts that (1) Alberts, IMO, does a better job of playing within his limitations, and (2) Vigneault's penchant for favoring Rome over a much better player in Keith Ballard.

Southern_Canuck wrote:I think you are being overcritical of a bottom pairing defenceman that makes $750k... The play of Aaron Rome is not what makes or breaks the Vancouver Canucks, and his cap hit does not prevent the Canucks from improving themselves.

I like Rome as a 5-6 defenceman that brings solid, if unspectacular, defence, some hits, some crease clearing, and is able to chip in on offence with some good breakout passes, and offensive zone keep ins. And he reliably chips it out when he doesn't think he has a play.

Compare depth defencemen around the league that cost $750k, and I think you'll find that Rome is one of the better ones.

S_C

Against teams like the Leafs and the Oilers, Rome was fine. However, against better teams with better forechecking, Rome makes a lot of mistakes which cost the team. Speaking of last night, if the Oilers have a better powerplay, Rome's stupid penalty could prove to be costly as well.

Meds wrote:Rome actually made some defensive plays tonight that were good. I still think he's useless and that the team is better off with Alberts in the lineup over Rome. Even with his handful of good reads, Rome still managed to play on the only defensive pairing that finished a minus. His penalty in the first when he went after Hall was stupid. The puck at the other end of the ice and the ref right beside him.....yeah.....why not throw Taylor Hall on his ass for no apparent reason? Here's a hint: "whistle".

In Rome's defence, Canucks Army has Rome's scoring chances differential at +3 (8 for/5 against). That was 2nd best behind Tanev +4 (7-3). Hamhuis was -1 (3-4), Bieksa even (4-4) and Salo/Edler were -1 each (2-3)

Scoring chance differentials mean nothing. Every shot on net can be considered a scoring chance because the possibility exists that the goalie will whiff on it and the puck ends up in the back of the net. However, every scoring chance is not necessarily a shot on net. So Hamhuis, Bieksa, Salo, and Edler, could be a -1 on the differential while keeping the Oiler's to the outside and surrendering shots that Schneider could see coming a mile away. Technically scoring chances, but not really threats to score unless Schneider screwed it up.

Rome was on for one of the Oiler's goals against and on the bench for all of the Canucks goals.

Well, no. Scoring chances mean something. Every shot can go in, but the likelihood of a shot from the scoring chance area going in is much greater. If you have more scoring chances than your opponent, the likelihood of you scoring more goals goes up the same degree. It's not an opinion, its evidence with empirical proof.

Canucks Army describes in fairly good detail what most NHL teams consider a "scoring chance" and have illustrations as to the shape of the area in front of the net that constitutes the scoring area. They count pucks directed at the net from the scoring area, plus shots from outside that are screened or involved significant puck movement before the puck is shot. They do this because Gillis and Vigneault are on record as stating they evaluate play and players based on scoring chances for and against, not shots.

If Hamhuis is keeping Oilers to the outside and allowing only shots that Schnieder can see, he'll never be considered to have been on the ice for a scoring chance against.

Now, Rome was on the ice for the most scoring chances against, that seems to be the part you're concerned about. However, I pointed out he was also suprisingly on the ice for the most scoring chances for. The combined picture shows he did OK.

Yes, scoring chances are influenced by score, other teammates, opponents and luck. But over the course of a whole game, that stuff often evens out. If you're a d-man on the ice for 8 scoring chances for and 5 against, I don't know how you could be labeled "useless".

I would suggest there actually is a use for a 6th d-man who comes out of games with a positive scoring chance differential. Because that d-man will make it more likely you'll win the game than not.

Larry Goodenough wrote:...Yes, scoring chances are influenced by score, other teammates, opponents and luck. But over the course of a whole game, that stuff often evens out...

That would be true if coaches just rolled their defensive pairings over the boards without regard to who the opponents had on the ice... but we all know that is not how it happens --- Hamhuis-Bieksa have to play against Malkin, Ovechkin, Iginla, Getlaf, Perry, Thornton, Nash, etc while Rome plays against 3rd and 4th lines like Eager, Jones, and so on.

Of course Thornton and Iginla are going to generate more scoring chances than Eager and Jones - and their shooting percentages will be higher as well. These things will not even out over a game or a season.

Advanced statistics have yet to be able to measure actual defensive prowess because of the factors you mention - especially teammates and opponents on the ice with the player in question.

Larry Goodenough wrote:...Yes, scoring chances are influenced by score, other teammates, opponents and luck. But over the course of a whole game, that stuff often evens out...

That would be true if coaches just rolled their defensive pairings over the boards without regard to who the opponents had on the ice... but we all know that is not how it happens --- Hamhuis-Bieksa have to play against Malkin, Ovechkin, Iginla, Getlaf, Perry, Thornton, Nash, etc while Rome plays against 3rd and 4th lines like Eager, Jones, and so on.

Of course Thornton and Iginla are going to generate more scoring chances than Eager and Jones - and their shooting percentages will be higher as well. These things will not even out over a game or a season.

Advanced statistics have yet to be able to measure actual defensive prowess because of the factors you mention - especially teammates and opponents on the ice with the player in question.

S_C

Somewhat true where looking just at scoring chances, however, quality of linemates and quality of competition are covered in advanced stats under qualcomp and qualteam categories. Corsi ratings are also measured against linemates and opposition under "Corsi Relative to Quality of competition and Corsi relative to Quality of teammates." Corsi when you're on the ice, vs your team's corsi when you're off the ice also gives a glimpse into your usefullness to your team.

Also my previous post was simply an argument that Rome is not "useless". He does get selected minutes and was playing against the Oilers, but a plus 3 scoring chance differential seems to point to him having a "serviceable" game more that "useless".

Larry Goodenough wrote:Somewhat true where looking just at scoring chances, however, quality of linemates and quality of competition are covered in advanced stats under qualcomp and qualteam categories. Corsi ratings are also measured against linemates and opposition under "Corsi Relative to Quality of competition and Corsi relative to Quality of teammates." Corsi when you're on the ice, vs your team's corsi when you're off the ice also gives a glimpse into your usefullness to your team.

Also my previous post was simply an argument that Rome is not "useless". He does get selected minutes and was playing against the Oilers, but a plus 3 scoring chance differential seems to point to him having a "serviceable" game more that "useless".

Just to be clear, I am a big fan of Rome in the 5-7 slot. I just thought the "scoring chance" stats you gave were misleading.

OK, I just studied up on Corsi stats you mentioned, and although they rely extensively on shots attempted without qualitative ratings of the shots, they are still interesting:

Corsi Rel QoC is the weighted Relative Corsi Number of a player's opponents.For example, if a player plays 30% of the time against five players with a relative corsi of +1.5, 35% of the time against five players with a relative corsi number of +0.2, and 35% of the time against five players with a relative corsi number of -2.1 then:Corsi Rel QoC = (0.3 * 5 * 1.5) + (0.35 * 5 * 0.2) + (0.35 * (5 * (-2.1)) = -1.075